Re: [PATCH] Add pg_get_trigger_ddl() to retrieve the CREATE TRIGGER statement

From: Philip Alger <paalger0(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Jim Jones <jim(dot)jones(at)uni-muenster(dot)de>
Cc: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Cary Huang <cary(dot)huang(at)highgo(dot)ca>, jian he <jian(dot)universality(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add pg_get_trigger_ddl() to retrieve the CREATE TRIGGER statement
Date: 2025-10-17 19:07:49
Message-ID: CAPXBC8JV54wejhNAhgSPLgupVkpfpQPwGkjuuY-17GF12S_+-w@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Hi Jim,

I am now wondering if introducing these new set of parameters to
> pg_get_triggerdef() would be a better solution that creating a new
> function.
>
> Doing so we keep it consistent with the other pg_get*def functions. What
> do you think?
>

The rationale behind it is here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/945db7c5-be75-45bf-b55b-cb1e56f2e3e9%40dunslane.net

So, I am new to PG development, but I am hesitant to modify the existing
`pg_get_triggerdef` or its parameters. My concern is that users may
currently rely on its existing functionality and parameter structure, and
altering it could introduce breaking changes. I think the naming
`pg_get_trigger_ddl` is actually better than `triggerdef` because all the
current `pg_get*def` implementations accept OIDs. To my knowledge, the only
one that accepted an OIDs or a name is `pg_get_viewdef`, but the name
variant is now deprecated.

--
Best,
Phil Alger

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Nathan Bossart 2025-10-17 19:11:10 Re: abi-compliance-check failure due to recent changes to pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats()
Previous Message Tom Lane 2025-10-17 18:45:12 Re: abi-compliance-check failure due to recent changes to pg_{clear,restore}_{attribute,relation}_stats()